Up to 9 homes at Land adjacent to Milnthorpe Road, Holme, Carnforth

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to nine homes, including 35% affordable housing, a new off-road path and landscaping.

“SOUTH LAKELAND LOCAL AREA PLANNING COMMITTEE _____________________________________________________________________ Planning Application Reference No. 2025/2221/PIP Proposal: Permission in Principle for up to 9 dwellings (to include 35% affordable housing) together with a new off-road path and associated landscaping.”

“SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 1.1 The application seeks permission in principle for up to 9 dwellings (to include 35% affordable housing) at land adjacent to Milnthorpe Road, Holme. The development boundary for Holme follows the edge of the road, with the site situated between it and Holme Sports Field.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The 0.35-hectare site lies beside Milnthorpe Road, next to Holme Sports Field and outside Holme’s development boundary; there was no site planning history.

“While the proposal is considered to be a departure from Policy CS1.2 and CS5 of the South Lakeland Core Strategy due to the projection beyond the development boundary, the proposed development benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.”

“The site is enclosed along the western boundary by a well-established hedgerow and there are two access gates. The site lies adjacent to the Holme development boundary and the street scene is open in character with a wide grass verge opposite and detached bungalows set within good-sized plots beyond.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the location, land use and amount of development acceptable because the council lacked a five-year housing supply and the site was sustainable.

“CONCLUSION 9.1 In accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) (Amendment) Order 2017 and National Planning Practice Guidance Permission in Principle, the proposed use of the site for residential development was assessed against the relevant development plan policies. This assessment was limited to location, land use and amount of development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

United Utilities requested investigation of sustainable surface-water management, while the parish council raised flooding, drainage, parking, infrastructure and access concerns.

“CONSULTATIONS 5.1 United Utilities All options for the sustainable management of surface water must be thoroughly investigated before we will accept any surface water connections from new development to the public sewer.”

“Houses in the area have ongoing foul drainage issues following periods of rain, which indicates that the foul drainage system in this area requires significant work to address the current problems before any development places an increased burden on it.”

Officer report

What local people said

Seven objections cited flooding, traffic, parking, loss of green space, pressure on facilities and harm to the village; others supported housing and affordable homes.

“They raise the following issues: - Loss of views - Lower house prices - Drainage infrastructure can’t cope, already backups and flooding - Loss of sports field - Loss of green space - The village has no amenities other than the public house and primary school - Increased traffic - Parking issues - Unjustified and harmful to the interests of the community - The village previously attempted to develop the site for a village hall, if that could not be justified then the housing…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant could not attend, so the Head of Development Management read the submitted statement; the registered objector did not speak.

What members discussed

Members were reminded that detailed impacts would be assessed later, and officers explained that the affordable-housing commitment was aspirational rather than binding.

“Members were reminded that permission in principle application sought confirmation that a proposed development was acceptable in principle; with other considerations such as visual impact, access and parking, impact on residential amenity, ecological impacts and impacts from drainage and flooding were assessed during the Technical Details Consent stage that followed the granting of permission in principle.”

“Following a query regarding the 35% affordable housing commitment in the application the Principle Planning Officer explained that this was not binding and that the applicant could come back to the Council later in the process to reduce the amount of affordable housing based on a financial viability study. It was noted that at this stage the 35% was aspirational.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

A motion to approve was moved and seconded, then passed unanimously.

“A motion to approve the permission in principle application was moved and seconded.”

Minutes

What was decided

Permission in principle was approved, subject to informatives requiring technical details consent before development and within three years.

“This permission in principle (PIP) shall cease to have effect three years after the date of this Decision Notice. The technical details consent (TDC) relating to the proposed development must be granted prior to the expiration of the PIP.”

“An application for Technical Details Consent must be made prior to commencement of development and no later than the expiration of three years from the date on this decision notice, after this period this Planning Permission in Principle shall lapse.”

Minutes